Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist? » Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Page: First 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 959

Posted 08/21/09 - 09:38 AM:	#121
Jubal Harshaw wrote: I disagree. It is rational for a person to abide by the moral guidelines he accepts ONLY for the reason that he accepts them. And if the reason that he accepts them is that he finds that they work pragmatically in everyday interactions, and as rules guiding the behavior of others in his society they provide emotional and psychological security for him? Is that not rational reason for accepting them?
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

realistcat
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 132

Posted 08/23/09 - 07:46 PM:	#122
The moral argument: "1. Moral behavior is rational. 2. Moral behavior is rational if and only if justice will be done. 3. Justice will be done if and only if God exists. 4. Therefore, God exists." Justice is not defined. Ideal justice doesn't actually exist as this would require a world without exploitation and domination and subordination. To put it another way, justice requires (1) a social arrangement where each has maximum fredom consistent with the same level of freedom of others, and (2) there is distributive justice, meaning that economic benefit is not concentrated into the hands of elites based on power over others. Whether justice "will be done" in the future...i.e. a just society created...is a matter of moral commitment and effort of humans. But even if we lose that fight, it does't follow that moral or solidaristic behavior is not "rational." And premise 3 begs the question. Since justice is a state of society, that is, it depends on the social arrangement, and since it is humans who construct social arrangments, we need not suppose any divine creator of efforts at making the social arrangment more just or moving closer to idea justice. In fact it has been human social movements that have generated moral progress. To suppose that somehow such movements presuppose a God, is to already pack in the conclusion in one of the premises. In other words, a person would have no reason to accept premise 3 unless the conclusion is one of their reasons for believing it. Therefore the argument is circular.

realistcat
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 132

Posted 08/23/09 - 08:10 PM:	#123
Modal cosmological argument: "1. It is possible that a necessary being explains the contingent universe. 2. If something is possibly necessary, then it exists in all possible worlds. 3. Whatever exists in all possible worlds exists in the real world. 4. Therefore, a necessary being exists in the real world." There are different ways this argument could be interpreted. For example: 1. <>[Ex (Exists-in-all-possible-worlds (x) & x explains U)] 2. (x)( <>Exists-in-all-possible-worlds (x) => Exists-in-all-possible worlds (x)) 3. (x)(Exists-in-all-possible-worlds (x) => Actual(x)) 4. hence, Ex (Exists-in-all-possible-worldsd (x) & Actual (x)) As I've formulated it here, the argument quantifies over all possible objects, that is, anything that exists in some possible world or other. This is a problem in itself because I think there are good reasons for thinking there is no such thing as a possible but non-actual individual. I'll ignore that objection for now. Instantiation: 5. in some possible world: (Exists-in-all-possible-worlds (a) & a explains U)(from 1) 6. in some possible world: (Exists-in-all-possible-worlds (a)) (from 5 by modal simplification) 7. if in some possible world Exists-in-all-possible-worlds (a) => Exists-in-all-possible-worlds (a) (from postulate of S5) 7. Exists-in-all-possible-worlds (a) (6, 7, modus ponens) 8. Exists-in-all-possible-worlds (a)=> Actual (a) instatiation of 3 9. Actual (a) (from 7,8, modus ponens) 10. Hence, there is something that actually exists that explains the universe. Ex(Actual (x) & x explains U) There is a problem with the final conclusion. The problem is that the argument does not establish that the thing that exists necessarily and explains the universe in some possible world also explains the universe in the actual world. All that this shows is that, if in some possible world there is a necessarily existing thing that explains the universe in that world, then this entity must also exist in the actual world. But for all that this argument shows, this entity might not explain the universe in the real world. It might be a very unpowerful and unimportant entity in the actual world, for all that this argument shows. Now the argument could be fixed if the author's first premise were: (1*) There is a possible entity which, if it exists, necessarily exists and it is an essential property of it to explain whatever universe exists in any possible world. But how would we go about trying to find out if this is a possibility? What evidence or argument could be offered for this? It is NOT sufficient to say, "Well, i can conceive of it being true." There have been things people have conceived of that turned out to be impossible, such as propositions in mathematics later proven to be false. It seems that the only reason a person could have for rationally accepting this proposition is that they think there ACTUALLY IS a necesary being that actually explains the universe. But in that case the argument is circular. Moreover, how does this necessary entity explain the universe? What is it about it that explains the universe? Perhaps the entity in question just is the universe itself. Perhaps the universe is such that it could not have failed to exist, and exists by nature. And perhaps the universe is a self-creative being, that unfolds throughout all eternity. So it "explains the universe" and "exists necessarily" but it is simply the physical cosmos itself. the theist can't object that the universe could not explain itself or exist by nature because, after all, they claim that God does exist by nature and explain itself. So they agree there can be beings that exist by nature and explain themselves, that is, explain why they exist.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 08/26/09 - 06:36 PM:	#124
Sorry to butt in this argument but as a neutral I think there are so many flaws in assessing this question! For the believers, I think you are ignoring the following: 1. The illogical nature of an infinite. 2. The argument over a creator of organic mechanism that is self-managing and renewing, if 'God' is 'dead', does 'creation' need him. How do you know 'he' isn't? 3. The idea of organization and morality. You assume that sentience cannot survive without morality? When you argue for morality, you are assuming life cannot exist without it. What's worse is that the argument provided is ridiculously, apology for the word, generalized to suit your own analysis. Yes morality is fine, but for you? Perhaps other forms of biological societies still survive without it, how can you say that humanity with morality is superior to another which might exist in another solar system? The idea of a debate is not to satisfy your personal assessment, it's to make sure the message fits all sides perfectly to everyone possible. 4. Limitations imposed by creating a 'Creator'. If you argue one existing, can this 'God' exist based on your judgment? Can this 'God' not be consciousness and just exist, one that possesses no consciousness but lives? If it does not have a consciousness, does it deserve worship. I have not seen anything address this. 5. The entire logic of worshipping, praying and sacrificing. A 'Creator' of such a renewable universe... does he need the mentioned at all? Do you not then reduce this 'thing' to suit your own interests? Protocols in religion then become rather unrequired, don't they? For non-believers: 1. Conviction - why the firm conviction? Because of automation or the power to expand at will? 2. The possibility of a 'higher' being still exists in Science, even hardcore atheists such as Dr. Dawkins agree to a possibility - so the argument of a side that completely rejects the possibility is rather open for a step in the foot, is it not? 3. Logic behind the non-existence. Why is a universe without a creator more logical than an universe without a creator, who could be a gigantic organism rather than a personal God, with all due respect. 4. The philosophical and social need for organization. Due to various psychological reasons, isn't a God playing a better part in evening up the process for those who don't have it from those who do? Do you not commit a grave psychological murder by taking away 'hope' albeit one that might be erroneous but beneficial, as scientifically proven? 5. Atheism being still hypothetically incorrect as a stand, we still have no evidence of the void of a higher consciousness. All you could argue is against the element of worship. So how can you argue for a void, I would be very interested to find out! Thank you for the attention, interesting topic.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1903

Posted 08/27/09 - 02:31 PM:	#125
SnoopDoug wrote: ... 3. Whatever exists in all possible worlds exists in the real world. 4. Therefore, a necessary being exists in the real world. What exists in all possible worlds and therefore exists in the real world, and hence is a necessary being? Well, the world, obviously.
I am awesome.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5115

Posted 08/27/09 - 02:49 PM:	#126
Yahadreas wrote: What exists in all possible worlds and therefore exists in the real world, and hence is a necessary being? Well, the world, obviously. Now putting it like this, Y, it's so much more compelling than my muddle in post no. 79 above which elicited only a (weak) non sequitur. Edited by 180 Proof on 08/27/09 - 02:55 PM. Reason: ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Jubal Harshaw
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 18, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 48

Posted 08/28/09 - 09:58 AM:	#127
brainpharte wrote: And if the reason that he accepts them is that he finds that they work pragmatically in everyday interactions, and as rules guiding the behavior of others in his society they provide emotional and psychological security for him? Is that not rational reason for accepting them? I did not say "It is rational for a person to abide by the moral guidelines he accepts ONLY for the reason for which he accepts them." I said THAT he accepts them.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 09/02/09 - 08:36 PM:	#128
aletheist wrote: On what basis? What is your source of information about the nature of God? Of course, in accordance with my argument, if God is an oppressive tyrant--just to be clear, I am not granting your implication that he would be if I am right--then being an oppressive tyrant is intrinsically good. If you find this absurd or intolerable, it is only because you have established your own arbitrary standard for what is good vs. evil. Does it make any sense to try to impose this on your creator, if such a being exists? Yes, yes it does. What authority does my creator have over me? Let's take a lesser example of this creator, my parents. Sure I love them, they're cool peoples, but am I to obey their every word because they made me? Am I obligated to obey any of their words at all? If so, why? Why exactly does creating me grant them any authority over me at all? These same questions can be asked of God if he does exist. You're the one that's so adamant about this free will thing, so why doesn't it make sense to impose a different standard of morality on my creator? He has his perspective of morality, and I have mine, if his doesn't match mine and he intends to punish me for it, I will ask him wtf is up with that? If he doesn't have a good answer I will tell him to fuck off. It's that simple, really.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

incredulator
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 08, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 09/08/09 - 12:38 PM:
Subject: necessary things

#129

Hi, I am new here, so excuse me if I am being dense, but I was puzzled by the following assertion from the debate:

If something is possibly necessary, then it exists in all possible worlds.

I think this statement is false. If something is possibly necessary, then it is also possibly not necessary. If something is possibly not necessary, then it is possibly necessary. The two statements are equivalent. Therefore, the above assertion implies:

If something is possibly not necessary, then it exists in all possible worlds.

Also, if something exists in all possible worlds, then it is necessary. If something is necessary, then it exists in all possible worlds. Therefore:

If something is possibly not necessary, then it is necessary.

Anything that is not necessary is possibly not necessary. Therefore:

If something is not necessary, then it is necessary.

Contradiction! Therefore that something cannot exist. There can be nothing that is not necessary. Therefore the original statement implies everything is necessary and therefore everything exists. Not just God, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Easter Bunny, zombies, every possibility exists! - incredulator

Introspecter
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 09/11/09 - 03:49 AM:	#130
I'm also new here and my knowledge in philosophy is limited at best. incredulator wrote: Anything that is not necessary is possibly not necessary. Therefore: If something is not necessary, then it is necessary. I think, following your preceding premises, your statement should've been: Anything that is not necessary is neither possibly necessary nor possibly unnecessary. I could be wrong though.

Page: First 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.